압류처분취소
1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. Following the confirmation of the judgment subject to a review may be recognized by the recording, or by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, as evidence A No. 46 and No. 47.
The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) did not pay the global income tax of KRW 17,679,760 imposed on April 30, 1999.
B. On May 25, 1999, the defendant (the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") attached the defendant's 2-dong 805, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C apartment owned by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was released from attachment on January 10, 2006, which caused the plaintiff to pay the delinquent amount in full by February 10, 2006.
C. However, according to the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay the amount in arrears until February 10, 2006, the Defendant again issued the instant disposition on February 20, 2006, which seized Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Adong 611, which was owned by the Plaintiff.
After that, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case (Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap36391), but on April 6, 2007, the judgment against the plaintiff was sentenced to the Seoul High Court 2007Nu11940, which dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on December 4, 2007 (hereinafter "the judgment on review"), but the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive by being notified by the Supreme Court that the plaintiff filed an appeal but dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.
E. On the other hand, on February 28, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a credit information provider notice stating that “the Plaintiff is expected to notify the financial institution subject to the credit information provider, as the amount in arrears exceeds 5,000,000 won,” and the Plaintiff received it on March 3, 2014.
F. On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose information to the effect that “the document of this case is to be disclosed”, but on April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said decision of dismissal (Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap11380) by the Defendant upon receipt of a decision of dismissal from the Defendant on April 28, 2014, and “the Defendant from the said court on September 19, 2014” was the Defendant on April 28, 2014.